User talk:M.srihari

Welcome!

Hello, M.srihari, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Uncletomwood (talk) 09:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

to clarify whether "number of carriers planned" means "number of carriers that have confirmed "design plans"? Please help me with... In the article of Vikrant-class aircraft carrier,there has been a dispute regarding the interpretation of facts since the existing information on public domain is clumsy and the editor's interpretations are different from one another.So is seek a clarifiaction on the issue with this the difference between saying "having confirmed plans for 2 carriers" and "there are only 2 carriers planned".Please help to solve this issue. Srihari
Best thing to do is go to the talk page and have the discussion.
117.198.184.5 (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Unable to solve a issue in Vikrant-class aircraft carrier even after several discussions occured.Request help from other editors too. Please help me with... In the article of Vikrant-class aircraft carrier,there has been a dispute regarding the interpretation of facts since the existing information on public domain is clumsy and the editor's interpretations are different from one another.Even after several discussions the solution seems to be a seas end.So is seek a clarification on the issue with this the difference between saying "having confirmed plans for 2 carriers" and "there are only 2 carriers planned".Please help to solve this issue.I request other editors to actively participate to solve this issue. Srihari

If no one can come to an agreement, then go for a Third Opinion. Your own user talk is not the place to solicit opinions. Primefac (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use talk page of the Article.
117.198.184.5 (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Air-cushioned landing craft

Please do not remove the inline citation notifying that the entry is disupted and the citations dont provide the answer unless you add a reliable reference and resolve the situation on the talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MilborneOne: Sorry for my actions there. This will not be repeated in future.M.srihari (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari[reply]

May 2015

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of more than one account or IP address by one person. If this was not your intention, then please always remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: I don't remember of making edits while I'm Logged out. I don't have the intention to Sockpuppet either. I wish to know which edit was made showing my IP. Because I'm concerned that my Wifi could have been hacked. Please Reply.M.srihari (talk) 05:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari[reply]

See here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/M.srihari. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're really concerned about your Wifi, use WAP2 with a passkey greater than 20 characters. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: These are not my IPs. They don't originate from my locality itself.M.srihari (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari[reply]

@Nick Thorne: Thank you for your suggestion. M.srihari (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Supercarrier#Dispute on Proposed Supercarriers". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 14:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

User:M.srihari please do not use phrases like "revenge edit" in your edit summaries when there is just a problem with a word, you need to take it to the talk page. And also please dont keep adding the same statement to User:BilCat talk page, he has a right to remove your statement so if you add it again you may be blocked for being disruptive. If you have a problem at Vikrant-class aircraft carrier take it to the talk page but do not edit war, if it helps have a cup of tea (or similar) and then when things are a bit more settled raise the issue on the talk page. I or somebody else will block you if you continue to be disruptive but we rather you engage others on the talk page so everybody can move forward, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, please see his pattern of edits. I cannot bear it as he reverts my edits in seconds after I have made it without giving proper explanation. He has the right to revert edits in talk page, but does that include the notice of a possible edit war? And also he reverted the edits made by me about my explanations too. How can I talk about every single edit for many days because of the reverts made by him (that seems intentional). Please tell me if I am disruptive or he?M.srihari (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari[reply]

I dont see a pattern of just reverting you from User:BilCat, you have to realise that he probably has thousands of articles he watches and has similar interests to you so your are bound to meet where your intersts combine in the same article. I know you cant see it at the moment but User:BilCat has a lot of knowledge and experience here at wikipedia, if you can talk and explain thing to him on the talk pages he his more likely to come to some consensus and possibly help to guide you in the right direction on how we build articles by consensus. Give it a try and use the article talk page. Now he should explain why he has reverted your edits but note that he is allowed to remove most things from his talk page (it is taken as a sign that he has read it, so you dont need to re-add, and also remember that it still can be read in the history). So please try talking to other editors I am sure in the end you will find the experience of building an encyclopedia rewarding, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MilborneOne:please see my modified reply in your talk page too. I have started a discussion in talk page as per your suggestion.M.srihari (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari[reply]

Thanks User:M.srihari, if it ends up with just you and User:BilCat not agreeing then you may need to do a Request for Comment or other dispute resolution. Also you need to stop attacking other editors and calling them racist, I cant see any evidence that BilCat has a racist attitude so you need to assume good faith here, no reason why BilCat would need to be he doesnt have a "hat in the ring" and it is also acceptable from him to declare a discussion as "fruitless" its not compulsory to join in discussion, and many dont like to while there is an open discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Remember polite discussion is better than edit warring so please take heed as I am trying to help you contribute rather than block you but you need to think first. MilborneOne (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I didn't make any baseless accusations. He was referring to a previous discussion in LCAC page where the tone appeared racist. He even agreed that and clarified his view there. But I am surprised that he uses that incident to have a prejudice of my comments. He has every right to call a discussion fruitless. But then why does he make edits if he is not willing to discuss on the issue during a dispute? That was my view. You have given me Warning For making statements such as revenge edits in summary page. But you need to notice the statements he made in your talk page where it is very clear he is making personal attacks. What is your view on those. I wish he comes forward to discuss first, else there could be no solution to this dispute.M.srihari (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari[reply]

@MilborneOne: And to note sir, I got blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. I am not interested in repeating it. I got blocked because I made edits without discussion. Now, when a newcomer like me is ready to discuss and resolve issues, why is the other editor who is experienced not interested in doing so? I didn't ask him to participate in other discussions but to those in which he is very much involved. And again, I didn't edit war, he just didn't explain.M.srihari (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari[reply]

@MilborneOne: Sorry, but I didn't read your reply properly before. you yourself say that polite discussion is the best way to solve disputes here. But just see this reply of my friend

I was and am being sarcastic, but it's not a stretch, as you've already accused me of racism in the past.
He wishes to have a discussion using sarcasm as a tool. i don't think this will promote a polite discussion. He again and again makes statements in which he says that I accuse him of racism in all his comments. Well, I did, (only) once.
While I understand Indian English may somewhat flexible in its use of words
What does he wish to say. I can't make any meaning out of it. (Whether he points to difference in the dialects or is he demeaning Indian English). Well, he did reply to it saying he only meant to point the difference in the languages and nothing more. The case is closed. But after that, he continues to provide examples of other articles of different nationalities. He also justifies it by saying that he doesn't wan't to give me space to accuse him as a racist again. What is this behavior? Do I look like a uneducated man, or is he mocking me? What kind of reply is this? And again, I accused him of Revenge edit (For which I have been warned) because of this
No, I won't stop removing unsourced additions that appear to be incorrect, especially if added by you.
what is that
especially if added by you
mean sir? You please explain. I agree that you try to help me. Indeed , I need help of experienced editors like you to contribute well without getting into trouble. But, I also wish you could give some suggestions to my friend there to stop mocking me. Regards--M.srihari (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

Talkback

Hello, M.srihari. You have new messages at Jaaron95's talk page.
Message added 20:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

JAaron95 (Talk) 20:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Supercarrier". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! JAaron95 (Talk) 09:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing at supercarrier page

I have reverted your deletion of a large amount of appropriately sourced material from the supercarrier article. You are advised to read and digest POINT. If you choose to ignore this advice and continue with your disruptive editing you can expect a visit to AN/I. Instead you should attempt o get consensus for your changes and if you cannot get it, then drop the issue. Continuing to go on about something that has already been agreed by everyone else can be seen as disruption on its own. You have been blocked twice already for edit warring on this and related areas, it is now time for you to take a step back and consider whether you really want to be involved in Wikipedia. If you do, then it is high time you learned how to behave, other editors have been giving you advice on how things work here, pay attention to them. - - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Thorne: I am very polite since I wish not to use vulgar words here. If my edits are disruptive, then what about yours? Your edit on defining supercarriers as those of the size of Nimitz class is actually your original research. Your edit to remove kuznetsov class is against wikipedia policies of not making any edits when there is a discussion going on about that issue. You only wish to impose your own views. You go to AN/I for my first phrase citing something about vulgar words or go on to use your sockpuppets such as ScorpionIV or BilCat to get me blocked. But remember, the next time you make any edits wihtout a consensus, I will sure start reverting edits made by you as you wish to do to me.M.srihari (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari[reply]

A word of advice my friend, be very careful throwing around accusations of sock puppetry. I have no idea who ScorpionIV is (although I'm sure he's a fine fellow), and BilCat lives on a completely different continent to me. I suspect both of them will be very surprised to learn that they are my sock puppets, as was I. I may be making somewhat light of this but in fact it is a very serious matter. I suggest you strike those comments forthwith. The chances of you avoiding a trip to AN/I are diminishing by the hour. Take heed while you still can. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly certain he is referring to me. Iam not surprised that he can not read my username. I have been accused of being a sockpuppet before, it seems de rigeur to accuse those who do not agree with a POV. So be it; but if this individual goes to AN/I, I can guarantee my support. Scr★pIron^IV 13:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're quite there yet. It will depend entirely upon how the editor behaves over then next little while. If he finally takes the massage he has been given loud and clear from multiple voices, then well and good and Wikipedia potentially gains another useful contributor. However, if he continues down the path of disruptive and pointy editing of articles and making unfounded personal attacks on other editors as well as simply prolonging talk page discussions with endless IDHT arguments then eventually he will end up at AN/I, whether by may hand or someone else's. I hope the situation is not yet beyond retrieval, but then I'm the eternal optimist. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:M.srihari reported by User:Jaaron95 (Result: ). Thank you. JAaron95 (Talk) 15:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of your previous edit war at Supercarrier

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report of this case is at WP:AN3 (permalink). You can be unblocked if you will accept a permanent ban from the topic of supercarriers on all pages of Wikipedia, including talk and noticeboards. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: I will accept not to make any edit disputes. But I will continue my contributions to the Discussion. I request your help in giving me a little info on how to report any disputes. If I had known that, I will not be in such a position. M.srihari (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari[reply]

I would refute this per WP:IDHT from personal experience. Editor is gaming the system to push a nationalist POV, and is the sole proponent of a WP:FRINGE theory to include a non-existent carrier design as a Supercarrier. If the sources supported it, the experienced editors involved would not oppose the contention.. Scr★pIron^IV 03:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the editor's history on the supercarrier page as well as other pages relating to Indian carriers and so on, I think any proposed topic ban be much broader in scope than just this one article. He has run into similar trouble for attempting to unjustifiably inflate the importance of his country elsewhere and seems to suffer badly from IDHT whenever another editor pulls him up for OR, synthesis or misrepresenting sources. I am not convinced he understands why he was blocked nor what is expected of editors on Wikipedia. I do not support unblocking unless the editor does a much better job of accepting his part in this. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Scarprion, stay off the dispute. Remember that you are also a disruptive editor. And Mr.Nick Thorne, You also have issues in this page. JAaron have made a RfC stating that your revert on his edits is disrupting his future contributions. I again say this, there is no consensus achieved about kuznetsov, and when the issue cropped up, it was still present in the article. So you technically removed the content when there was discussion. This is against wikipedia guidelines for solving disputes. You go and see them as your edit fits multiple categories.M.srihari (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari[reply]

@EdJohnston: I will agree to stop any edits in the supercarrier page till dispute resolution. As far as other pages such as vikrant-class are concerned, I think that there is no problem now and I will stay off them too .But you need to clarify whether editing contents that are currently under debate is correct. You have banned me for 2 weeks. Even after that,I will still face this same issue. So please clarify first.M.srihari (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari[reply]

M.srihari, my offer stands as written. To accept it you must agree to stay away from the topic of supercarriers on all pages of Wikipedia. That would include dispute resolution. In my opinion, your participation on the topic of supercarriers is not helpful to the encyclopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston:I will stay away from editing in not only this, but also other pages such as vikrant class until the disputes are resolved. I also give my word that I will not revert any edits or make anything controversial edits like QE class. But I wish to join the DRN since I wish to make my points there, of-course without any personal vendetta. My problem is that as I am new, I still don't know how to approach DRN such as AN/I. Had I had known it, I wouldn't have this problem. I wish you could guide me in such DRN methods so as to end disputes peacefully . M.srihari (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari[reply]

My proposal that you accept a topic ban is to save others' time. It won't work if you continue to dispute about supercarriers in every possible forum. EdJohnston (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston:I agree that saving others time is important. I also don't wish to spend time on worthless edits anymore. The discussion on whether to add proposed carriers section is going on over a month. Please see who's the reason behind it. Your proposal to exile me out of all defense related articles is equivalent to asking me to stay off wikipedia since this my area of interest. I again promise not to make edits, but I don't agree to give up my right to participate in discussions, which, I promise, will be polite, civil and strictly issue specific.M.srihari (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari[reply]

You could still make other defense-related edits, so long as they don't involve supercarriers. EdJohnston (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Thank you. I await your response to my request to allow me participate in disucssions, including supercarriers.M.srihari (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari[reply]

My offer says you need to avoid supercarriers on all pages, including discussions. On other defense topics, you can participate with no restrictions. If you don't agree to that, then there is no need to continue this. EdJohnston (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: I am sorry sir. I couldn't agree to leave my right to discuss. I have abused my right to edit, I agree, but as far as I know, I didn't make any problems in discussions. I can't agree to a permanent exile on supercarrier either. I agree to not make any edits there, if I have problems elsewhere, I will discuss, else , approach DRN.M.srihari (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari[reply]

Supercarrier DRN

@Hasteur:: I object the closure of DRN as it has not attracted any editors so far and also Antiochus the great hasn't given his views there.M.srihari (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari[reply]

@Hasteur: This was appropriately closed. Without M.srahiri's input, there is no dispute to be resolved. Scr★pIron^IV 16:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ScrapIronIV: Hey you scraprust, why don't you just do some good job in wikipedia rather than stalking my page and also poking your nose on issues in which you aren't involved?M.srihari (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari[reply]

DRDO AURA

@Nicky Mathew: Hi. I saw you made some edits about the users of AURA. The expected tags were removed and also Indian Navy was taken out. As far a I checked, there is no official confirmation that it is only for IAF except some media buff. If there is one, then I request you to add it back there. I have found a source in which the information provided matches exactly to the info in the wikipedia article, except that it states Indian Navy also as the primary user. http://defencenews.in/defence-news-internal.aspx?id=huSU6cBsLiU= . As far as I know, even the AURA could be developed for The strategic Forces Command. I expect your reply.M.srihari (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari[reply]